July 12, 2014

As much as cultural outreach matters, I wouldn’t want the kind of conservative political party that essentially declines to represent populist and social conservatives at all on many issues, enforcing an elite consensus instead of representing its own constituents wherever those constituents seem too disreputable or insufficiently cosmopolitan. This is what you have on the center-right in many European countries, Sullivan’s native isle at times included, and I don’t think it’s worked out particularly well: When it hasn’t led directly to disaster (see Eurozone, disastrous anti-democratic expansion of), it’s often shunted important issues (immigration, religious identity, crime, multiculturalism, etc.) to a back burner, where they simmer and simmer until some crisis makes them boil over, and the next thing you know you have to deal with a Marine Le Pen (if not a Golden Dawn). And to a lesser extent this is the dynamic that’s made the Tea Party so angry, uncompromising and intermittently destructive in our own politics — the sense, often somewhat accurate, that their leaders want their votes but not their ideas, and that there are semi-deliberate conspiracies to deceive them about what their elected representatives are really after.

The reality is that, except in truly exceptional cases, our politics is better off in the long run when views held by large proportions of the public are represented in some form by one of our two parties. Right now (to run down a partial list of divisive cultural issues), a plurality of Americans want the immigration rate decreased; about half the country opposes affirmative action; more than half supports the death penalty; about half of Americans call themselves pro-life. Support for gay marriage and marijuana legalization has skyrocketed, but in both cases about 40 percent of the country is still opposed. Even independent of my own (yes, populist and socially conservative) views, I think these people, these opinions, deserve democratic representation: Representation that leads and channels and restrains, representation that recognizes trends and trajectories and political realities, but also representation that makes them feel well-served, spoken for, and (in the case of issues where they’re probably on the losing side) respected even in defeat.

His stats are soft. To say that the majority believe homosexuals can marry doesn't mean that they view homosexual marriage as a real marriage. It just means "call yourself whatever but keep it out of my face". This is the suburban/rural view. (No one would hold a gay parade in the burbs.) That's how you get a majority on the issue which is a pretty weak majority. Most pro abortion polls have a significant number of people who are "not past the 1st trimester" folks. Our culture wars are a city vs everyone else and families vs singles. Their side having the biggest megaphone (MSM) is not helpful. Repubs need to hit the burbs hard....the cities are lost....also the asians need to talked to and not forgotten. On social and fiscal issues they are much closer to conservatives.

>>... the sense, often somewhat accurate, that their leaders want their votes but not their ideas, and that there are semi-deliberate conspiracies to deceive them about what their elected representatives are really after.<<

Somewhat accurate? Somewhat? What damn planet has Douthat been living on the past several election cycles? Somewhat my ass.

Mein Gott, Harry Huntington's post is like a Cliff Notes of progressive delusion. Just beautiful in how it neatly summarizes the spectacle of zany moonbattery and lying liars lying.

Social conservatives want government to regulate marriage,

To figure out who the actual tyrants are, it helps to see what happens to individuals when they do something that deviates from what the state mandates or prohibits.

Previous to legalized same-sex marriage, a same-sex couple could hold a civil ceremony, a luau, a barbecue or whatever the heck kind of celebration they wanted & call themselves married. Did conservatives sue them? No. Did the state fine them or throw them in prison for throwing a celebration & calling themselves married? No.

The state *did* react if a same-sex couple who called themselves married after holding a private ceremony then tried to file taxes jointly as a married couple, or if one partner tried to claim Social Security survivor spouse benefits after the death of the other partner. But note that we are now well out of the realm of private bedroom practices & into the domain of the public purse.

By contrast, business owners *have* been sued by same-sex couples, and have been punished by the state, for refusing to provide very specific goods and services to those same-sex couples in the context of a celebration of a same-sex marriage ceremony.

Got it? Same-sex couple wants to call themselves married. Nobody sues or uses the hammer of state on that couple. Christian photographer or baker declines to provide wedding-related service for a same-sex couple. TEOTWAWKI!!!!!! Same-sex couple sues Christian business owner. State fines business owner and/or compels them to provide service to same-sex couple.

And the tyrants here would be .... those who won't let other people live their lives (run their businesses, offer their labor and services) in the way that they themselves see fit. For the tyrant, it's always and only, "My way or the litigation from hell and the destruction of your livelihood."

birth control

Lord, Harry, I realize that NO ONE read those 2000+ pages of Obamacare garbage before the garbage got passed. But now that it *has* passed, and sure as Nancy P said, we found out what was in it, land-o-Goshen, it turns out it's chock full of all sorts of regulations and mandates concerning birth control.

Not a single Republican voted for this piece of legislative pig vomit.

Because leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) have passed ZERO regulations -- why, none at all -- on this topic. Nope. Their dainty hands are as soft as (unaborted) baby's hands, never ever having touched so much as a pen, a computer key, a phone or a check from NARAL in furtherance of any law whatsoever. Nope. They just refuse to engage, those saintly and principled progressives -- they will NOT use government in any way, whatsoever, when it comes to Abortion Abortion Abortion Abortion Abortion, la la la la laaaaa.

Social conservatives have strong ideas about how to regulate education.

Not sure what your point is here. Is your problem with people who "have strong ideas"? (OMG!!!!!!! "Clap on the irons, Jeeves, those people with ideas are about to make a post on a blog!!!!!!")

Okay, so I will admit that, yes, social conservatives DO in fact have strong ideas. Whereas progressives have hashtag fits. So, half a point to you.

But regulating education to death?

But who has been trying to UN-regulate Washington DC's control over public education by advocating the abolition of the Dept of Education for umpteen years now? Conservatives or progressives?

Name the FLOTUS whose efforts to exert top-down control over school lunches all across America resulted in: (a) hungry schoolkids all across America, and (b) lunch room garbage cans brimming with whole-wheat tortillas and other unpalatable yuckeries that Sasha and Malia would never be forced to eat in THEIR (super--dooper-posh private-school) school cafeteria.

Social conservatives tend to want government rules to prevent labor unions from operating.

From operating as thugs.

There. Finished that sentence for you.

Conservatives have no problem with workers being allowed to FREELY choose and PRIVATELY vote via SECRET BALLOT on unionization or no. And conservatives also have not sought to prohibit workers from voluntarily contributing dues to their union if that's what the workers feel is in their best interest.

As usual, Douthat dances around the edges of the matter but either lacks the courage or the insight into addressing what is really driving the culture wars.

The law in every society reflects the the moral foundation of that society. The American moral foundation for several hundred years has been non-sectarian Christian-our laws have reinforced this traditional Christian moral foundation.

The reason we have a "culture war" is because the Left wants to replace this moral foundation with a post-modern morality that is both alien and dysfunctional. The Left will lie, tell half-truths, legislate, and litigate, 24/7, in its quest to make this post-modern, post-human morality the law of the land. Presently, this quest toward post-modern morality is what PSYCHOLOGICALLY drives every Leftist in both America and around the world.

One moral system will always receive official government support. There is no possibility of a neutral result because the two moral systems are so incompatible. Any pose toward government neutrality will automatically benefit the Leftists because they will relentlessly press their advantage. We have seen this time and time again as each tradition-based law is supplanted with a new post-modern one.

Those who embrace traditional Christian morality (whether they are actually practicing Christians or not) understand surrender is not an option. If "reform conservatives" think they can avoid or sidestep this fight and be neutral, they are gravely mistaken because if post-modern, post-human morality is enshrined into law, there will be no such thing as "limited government".

Contrary to the fantasy of some "libertarians" and "reform conservatives", you can't have a "limited government" when the government is expected to foot the bill for the consequences of everyone's post-modern decision-making.

Contrary to the fantasy of some "libertarians" and "reform conservatives", you can't have a "limited government" when the government is expected to foot the bill for the consequences of everyone's post-modern decision-making.

What the hell? Might as well say a plurality of Americans would prefer somewhat less crime. "Immigration rate decreased" my ass, we want a border, and we want it protected! This is not immigration: it is an invasion, engineered by a traitorous Chief Executive as part of a political coup meant to deliver perennial government power to the Democrat Party.

Establishment Republicans have surrendered on the culture wars - on illegal immigration, affirmative action, family values, education (k-12 and higher education), smaller government, quotas, ad nauseum. Basically they've surrendered on almost everything that matters to the middle class. They may not make things worse, but when they hold power the do zilch to make things better. There is little point anymore in voting for the GOP. It's Lucy with the football - every time they win, we hope they'll reform the systen. They always refuse to do so. I'm frankly not sure I care all that much if they win in November.

Given a party that does nothing (speaking hypothetically; I think this is untrue and unfair) versus a party that actively does bad things, it seems clear to me that there *is* a point to voting for the former.

That's plainly wrong. Social conservatives want big government, they just want big government doing different things than the mainstream big government types want. Social conservatives want government to regulate marriage, birth control, women's health, and family life. Social conservatives have strong ideas about how to regulate education. Social conservatives tend to want government rules to prevent labor unions from operating. Social conservatives are in many ways quite happy with a police state, just their police are enforcing different laws than the Obama police.

You win the comedy of the day award.You don't have a freaking clue what Social Conservatives REALLY want.

What we want is the Federal Government not making decisions that belong at the State and local level. What we want is the freedom to express our faith without being called "Haters" or told we're idiots by overeducated, underexperienced Group Think drones. What we want is to promote American values in the market place of ideals. Because those are the values that give you the freedom to sound off like the unaware, progr-rat drone you are.

No, THAT's plainly wrong. The most socially conservative people I know are politically very libertarian. The vast majority of social conservatives would be happy if the federal government just stopped subsidizing the collapse of community and morality, and simply got out of the way of communities and the 'social spirit' doing their thing. When people would screw up their own lives, they would reap the consequences, and no longer ask for 'tolerance'.

There's a very good economic argument that truly libertarian communities inevitably are the most morally punctilious, because in the absence of regulatory protections and externality shifting, personal accountability and reputation matter more than ever.

Douthat, another one that sorta lives in a bubble, although not as bad as those he mentions in this article, is contradicting himself here. He bemoans the culture of cynical vote exploitation ("their leaders want their votes but not their ideas, and that there are semi-deliberate conspiracies to deceive them about what their elected representatives are really after"), but then he's pretty much endorsing just that. The only difference between the reality that Douthat wants and the reality he denounces now is that the way it is now, on the "important issues of immigration, religious identity, crime, multiculturalism, etc," some in the political class run with those issues during campaign season (though even that's debatable), but when they win election, they ignore those issues. Douthat wants them to throw us a crumb or two every once in awhile, in order to placate us so we don't get the idea to solve the problem (Le Pen, Golden Dawn, etc.)

The press and pols who were stunned that California voters passed Proposition 13 despite the hysterical warnings that the sky would fall from Democrats (including the notorious Texas export Willie Brown). What is never mentioned is that Prop. 13 folllowed a long train of attempts over a quarter-century to get the attention of the Legislature that property tax hikes were out of control, causing people to lose their homes, and making rents unaffordable.

The Establishment and its pet press called Howard Jarvis, Paul Gann, and all the citizens they spoke for derogatory names, made racist accusations against them, etc. But there weren't quite enough rubes to gull into protecting the Tax And Spend machine, so unlike so many of the (much milder) past attempts to reform the Beast, Prop. 13 passed.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.